Minnesota legislation on brewery barrel limits

I'm not clear why just because you are successful you should face further obstacles...the little entity(brewery) is always going to have to find ways to compete with the bigger ones and many do.

I'm not for penalizing those who have succeeded and having state laws holding them back to level the playing field for those who haven't produced at the same level......I have no dog in this fight.

 

Is there any other state that limits growler and off-sale packages based on a brewery's barrelage? Or is this another area like 3.2% beer where we fall short of more progressive states like Alabama and Utah?

 

I travel quite a bit & can say, I have yet to see any other breweries limit offsite purchases.
Most have various packaging, to include cans/bottles. Even Serra Nevada in North Carolina has beer to go & and that's one big place!!

Unfortunately, MN continues to operate in the dark ages when it comes to liquor laws!

 

IIRC, the restriction was put into place to give the little guys an advantage as they start up and try to establish their business. Growth to the point of no longer being little means giving up the advantage. It wasn't intended (again, IIRC) as a penalty (don't forget, prior to the law, NO distributing brewery could sell for off-premise consumption - , but was based on the assumption that above a certain size, the advantage goes away because it is not as much needed. Once a business has a certain success, it can stand on its own to fight for shelf space, bar taps, etc. Not so the startups.

The pandemic changed the calculus, though. Prior to that it was just a couple of brewers fretting as they approached the limit.

Of the big three, Surly had the largest in-house trade business (guessing here; no data, but it seems pretty obvious), and so the pandemic likely hurt them (percentage-wise) more than Summit or Schell. The law as it stands means they cannot sell take out beer with their food (like any other restaurant in the state can) nor can they sell take out beer at all (like all the smaller breweries in the state).

Should a law exist that provides a competitive advantage to a small business over a large one? In general, my view is no. Should small grocers be protected from Hy-Vee and Cub. Target and Walmart? If no, how are small breweries different?

But, once it is in place, it is very much an uphill battle to get it changed, because you are going against those who like the law and have built their businesses around it.

For example, it seems clear that Surly being able to sell directly to consumers for off-premise consumption will have a negative affect on many surrounding liquor stores. How negative? IDK, but you can bet they will be among those fighting against any change.

Should the law be changed when the existing law only negatively affects, what, 5 business in the state, when the change will negatively affect many more small businesses?

I know as consumers we want what we want. But that is not the only issue, is it?

Personally, I think all such restrictions should be removed. But I'm not holding my breath.

I can also understand the point of view of those who do not want the law changed. They are not evil; they are just doing what they think is best for their businesses.

 

This is one of the best posts of the year on the forum. Appreciate the thoughts.

 

Thanks. High praise... thanks.

 

Would there be a conversation about the negative effect of large breweries being able to sell directly to the public for offsite consumption if the law wasn't written this way in the first place? Would that really be identified as an unfair advantage, or would it seem normal and logical? There is a perceived unfairness only because the laws in MN are written the way they are, and if the laws instead generally fell in line with the way laws were written in almost every other state in the country then this discussion wouldn't be happening AND there would be no perceived advantage to larger breweries.

If there is such a concern about negativity affecting surrounding businesses, then why should a brewery be allowed to operate two on-site restaurants? Why should they be allowed to operate as an outdoor music venue? Why should they even be allowed to serve beer on-site? All of those things are negatively impacting surrounding restaurants, music venues, bars, and liquor stores.

 

Don't forget... this law is not that old. The fight for the growler law was hard-fought against by these other businesses. The intent (as I said above) was to encourage the success of the small breweries. The barrelage limit to be able to sell growlers as a distributing brewery was the compromise reached in the legislature at the time (IIRC).

 

I wasn't referring to the "new" law, I was referring to existing laws that prohibited a distributing brewery from selling for off-premise consumption. Regarding the compromise - it's ridiculous that a brewery can sell 64 oz. of beer in a growler (which is a poor container for beer) but cannot sell 64 oz. of beer in 4 cans.

I think we both wish that this wasn't the situation, and I agree with the points you make, especially:

I was attempting to highlight the aspects of the laws that I thought were inane. I am sure that the growler law provided financial benefit to MN breweries, but the fact that was such a struggle to come to that agreement makes no sense to me.

It sounds as ridiculous as the restrictions placed on breweries in MN, but why not place similar restrictions on liquor stores? How would they like to sell all beer brewed in MN only in 750 mL and 64 oz. containers?

 

Agree, completely.